Comparing Genomes with Duplications: A Computational Complexity Point of View

Abstract

Abstract-In this paper, we are interested in the computational complexity of computing (dis)similarity measures between two genomes when they contain duplicated genes or genomic markers, a problem that happens frequently when comparing whole nuclear genomes. Recently, several methods [1], [2] have been proposed that are based on two steps to compute a given (dis)similarity measure M between two genomes G 1 and G 2 : First, one establishes a one-to-one correspondence between the genes of G 1 and the genes of G 2 ; second, once this correspondence is established, it explicitly defines a permutation and it is then possible to quantify their similarity using classical measures defined for permutations like the number of breakpoints. Hence, these methods rely on two elements: a way to establish a one-to-one correspondence between genes of a pair of genomes and a (dis)similarity measure for permutations. The problem is then, given a (dis)similarity measure for permutations, compute a correspondence that defines an optimal permutation for this measure. We are interested here in two models to compute a one-to-one correspondence: the exemplar model, where all but one copy is deleted in both genomes for each gene family, and the matching model, which computes a maximal correspondence for each gene family. We show that, for these two models and for three (dis)similarity measures on permutations, namely, the number of common intervals, the maximum adjacency disruption (MAD) number, and the summed adjacency disruption (SAD) number, the problem of computing an optimal correspondence is NP-complete and even APX-hard for the MAD number and the SAD number.Index Terms-Comparative genomics, computational complexity, common intervals, maximum adjacency disruption number, summed adjacency disruption number.

Ancestral Genome Organization: An Alignment Approach

“…Although the problem is NP-complete in the general case of substrings with multiple gene copies [2,9,13], many heuristics exist for approximating the inversion distance (see for example [15,39,41,42]). …”

Issues in the Reconstruction of Gene Order Evolution

“…Between the computationally complex problems of gene order comparison allowing arbitrarily many copies of each gene [45] , and the computationally tractable genome halving, lies the biologically plausible problem of partial genome halving. Here only part of the genome, e.g., one or several chromosomes, has been doubled.…”

Analysis of Gene Order Evolution Beyond Single-Copy Genes

“…More recently, another distance that has been extensively studied is the Double-Cut-and-Join (DCJ) distance which represents a greater repertoire of rearrangement events while giving rise to simpler formal results [11,12,124]. For the purpose of genome rearrangement, handling duplicated genes leads to hard problems (see [3,18,29] for the computation of genomic distances for example). We review the rearrangement phylogeny problem in Section 5 emphasizing the case of multiple gene copies.…”